Hmmm, when my family first immigrated to this great country, it was definitely a "protestant nation". I mean us Catholics could live here, and practice our faith.... but we had to accept that this was a protestant nation, and we should just deal with it and accept any and all Catholic bashing and protestant indoctrination of our children. The good folk of this country didn't like our "popish ways".

But now that is other people, its cool huh? I mean, they aren't like us so it's ok if we just go ahead and push our beliefs on them? Just because it is a mandatory work related event, doesn't give them the right to expect others respect for their beliefs. That whole thing about the government not establishing a religion only applies to picking one Christian denomination over another, we all know that the government has every right to hold generic Christianity over all other religions. Because this is a Christian nation

Please keep in mind that the history of both the US and Canada includes settlements that were under the authority of Catholic monarchies (the French Acadians in Canada, who subsequently migrated to Louisiana, the Spaniards in Florida and California), and that the providence (and later, state) of Maryland was formed as a haven colony for English Catholics. So, the Catholics were already very active and settled in large numbers in these two countries prior to the unification of states/territories under Protestant command.

That being said, I don't know when your family emigrated to the Americas, but I do believe Catholics had a duty to respect Protestantism if that was the dominant religion at the time they arrived. After all, it was due to the influence of Protestant people that both Canada and the US are the countries they are today. I can say that my family emigrated in the 1800's, when most states were ratified into the Union. Catholics were not forced to leave Catholic France, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Poland, etc. They chose to emigrate to what had become a predominantly Protestant nation and therefore I do believe they had to respect those traditions, even if they had the freedom to follow their own.

However, there's a significant difference between Catholic integration into these countries and what we see now from those who profess a different (or lack of) faith. Catholics, to the best of my knowledge (and I can't speak for Canadian history here), did not seek to deliberately subvert or disrespect the expressions of Protestant denominations. I can't recall reading of instances in which Catholics protested a Christmas tree being put up in a (mostly Protestant) town square. I doubt Catholics had insisted on removing Crosses and replacing them with Crucifixes in public schools. And I'm sure that Catholic parents never objected to their children standing up and saying "One nation, under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps because both are united under the banner of Christianity, they are more compatible with each other than are people who adhere to beliefs which are radically different. There is a difference between observing a specific religious tradition in one's personal life versus attempting to eradicate all signs of Christianity from the public sphere under the guise of "tolerance" and religious "freedom".

Please keep in mind that the history of both the US and Canada includes settlements that were under the authority of Catholic monarchies (the French Acadians in Canada, who subsequently migrated to Louisiana, the Spaniards in Florida and California), and that the providence (and later, state) of Maryland was formed as a haven colony for English Catholics. So, the Catholics were already very active and settled in large numbers in these two countries prior to the unification of states/territories under Protestant command.

That being said, I don't know when your family emigrated to the Americas, but I do believe Catholics had a duty to respect Protestantism if that was the dominant religion at the time they arrived. After all, it was due to the influence of Protestant people that both Canada and the US are the countries they are today. I can say that my family emigrated in the 1800's, when most states were ratified into the Union. Catholics were not forced to leave Catholic France, Italy, Ireland, Germany, Poland, etc. They chose to emigrate to what had become a predominantly Protestant nation and therefore I do believe they had to respect those traditions, even if they had the freedom to follow their own.

However, there's a significant difference between Catholic integration into these countries and what we see now from those who profess a different (or lack of) faith. Catholics, to the best of my knowledge (and I can't speak for Canadian history here), did not seek to deliberately subvert or disrespect the expressions of Protestant denominations. I can't recall reading of instances in which Catholics protested a Christmas tree being put up in a (mostly Protestant) town square. I doubt Catholics had insisted on removing Crosses and replacing them with Crucifixes in public schools. And I'm sure that Catholic parents never objected to their children standing up and saying "One nation, under God" during the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps because both are united under the banner of Christianity, they are more compatible with each other than are people who adhere to beliefs which are radically different. There is a difference between observing a specific religious tradition in one's personal life versus attempting to eradicate all signs of Christianity from the public sphere under the guise of "tolerance" and religious "freedom".

A couple of years ago shortly before Christmas, in Quebec National Assembly, there was a debate: should the Christmas tree standing in front of the National Assembly be called the "Holiday Tree". Believe it or not, even the B,nai Brith thought it was a silly idea. Perhaps a vast majority of people of faiths other than the Christian faith have no problem with Christianity, perhaps people who'd like to see Christianity disappear are using the noble pretext of tolerance of others' faiths to push this down our throats. When this strategy fails, they'll parrot the magic formula: separation of Church and state. If the state was not already separated from the Church, don't these useful idiots think abortion might not be legal because Churches which are worth their salt are opposed to abortion. http://www.bnaibrith.ca/prdisplay.php?id=1416 Strange times, indeed. In times when most people were reasonable, such a proposal would have been welcome by a stunned look that meant "Are you out of your mind?". Now it's carefully studied and we need people of Jewish faith to tell us," That's okay, you don't need to do this". God, have mercy.

Ah, so the "Holiday Tree" is up in Canada too? We have the "Holiday Tree", and in some cases where the root of the word ("Holy") is deemed too offensive, we benevolently call it a "Winter Tree". After all, a reference to seasons couldn't possibly offend anyone. The city I live in rejected an Atheist group's request to erect a "Tree of Knowledge" in one of our parks this year. Apparently, Jesus is trying to selfishly stake a claim on evergreens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robertanthony

Strange times, indeed. [b]In times when most people were reasonable, such a proposal would have been welcome by a stunned look that meant "Are you out of your mind?".

Well said. You hit the nail on the head. It seems that now Christians should not only be forced to constantly brace themselves from attacks to their proclamations of faith, they should at the same time be grateful for the permission to even mention the name of their God!

Ah, so the "Holiday Tree" is up in Canada too? We have the "Holiday Tree", and in some cases where the root of the word ("Holy") is deemed too offensive, we benevolently call it a "Winter Tree". After all, a reference to seasons couldn't possibly offend anyone. The city I live in rejected an Atheist group's request to erect a "Tree of Knowledge" in one of our parks this year. Apparently, Jesus is trying to selfishly stake a claim on evergreens.

Well said. You hit the nail on the head. It seems that now Christians should not only be forced to constantly brace themselves from attacks to their proclamations of faith, they should at the same time be grateful for the permission to even mention the name of their God!

It's not Jews who call Christmas trees "holiday trees" but Gentiles. The problem arises in places where Jews ask to place a Hanukkah menorah on the town square, just as there is a Christmas tree. At this point the Jew is told that while the Christmas tree is a secular symbol, the Hanukkah menorah is a Jewish religious symbol. In fact, they are told it is not a Christmas tree at all but a "holiday tree".

Remember what happened at the Seattle-Tacoma airport in 2006? A Rabbi seeing more than two dozen Christmas trees throughout the airport asked to be able to place a Hanukkah menorah. The airport authorities, rather than accede to his request, then removed all the Christmas trees from the airport and falsely accused the Rabbi of demanding that the Christmas trees be removed.

Montreal and Quebec in general is not a good standard. This is the place where residents voted not to allow a small 400 ft. extension at the back of a 60 year old synagogue, where they ended up banning a traditional Church parade just so they could ban a Jewish Purim parade, where synagogues and Jewish institutions are frequently vandalized, where Jewish vacation homes are broken into and anti-Semitic vitriol sprawled on the walls.

You are absolutely correct that Jews are a small minority in North America. However a police department function isn't a church service. It's being carried out in conjunction with the place of employment. It's a question of empathy and understanding and sensitivity. By using the word "God" you can include all those employees equally, no one has to feel left out or different. In the end you have to ask yourselves "what is the "Christian" thing to do"?

Yes, sadly it is often a Gentile who attacks his own culture, and often the Gentile only calls it a Holiday tree because he has been pressured to do so. And sometimes, that Gentile is merely a front-man for a non-Gentile organization. It also remains true that one of the most aggressive and vocal anti-Christmas groups (among others) is the ADL, or originally known as The Independent Order of B’nai B’rith (though they decided with good reason to re-name the organization). Perhaps groups such as these had some effect on the reasons we now call it a Holiday Tree?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chosen people

The problem arises in places where Jews ask to place a Hanukkah menorah on the town square, just as there is a Christmas tree. At this point the Jew is told that while the Christmas tree is a secular symbol, the Hanukkah menorah is a Jewish religious symbol. In fact, they are told it is not a Christmas tree at all but a "holiday tree".

Remember what happened at the Seattle-Tacoma airport in 2006? A Rabbi seeing more than two dozen Christmas trees throughout the airport asked to be able to place a Hanukkah menorah. The airport authorities, rather than accede to his request, then removed all the Christmas trees from the airport and falsely accused the Rabbi of demanding that the Christmas trees be removed.

They removed the trees to avoid all further conflict. You see what happens here? First it's just a Menorah. But then it's also winter solstice fir. Then it's some Kwanzaa symbol. Then it's a "Tree of Knowledge." During the most special of Christian seasons, Jesus now has to compete with everyone else.

And this is the crux of the issue, isn't it? If the Rabbi had simply acknowledged to himself that he lives in a predominantly Christian nation, and that he should respect the customs that have been carried out for years, and that he shouldn’t let it bother him since no one forced him to bow before the Christmas tree, this whole problem would never have arisen. I’m sure that no one prevents him from displaying a Menorah in his window during the Hanukah season, and I support his freedom to do so. Why is it that he felt oppressed? It has been Christian tradition to erect trees in public venues, but I thought Menorahs were traditionally displayed in homes and temples (please correct me if I’m wrong about this), so why the need to prop them up publicly, if it is not a just a roundabout way of saying “Hey, I don’t like Jesus hogging the limelight.”?

I’m not trying to derail this thread, but please understand Chosen People that you opened the door to this line of questioning when you stated:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chosen people

I think the problem is that non-Jews have no idea how intensive religious anti-Semitism against Jews was

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by chosen people

because their Christian anti-Semitism meant pogroms and death

and

Quote:

Originally Posted by chosen people

forced conversions and forced classes on Christianity

and finally,

Quote:

Originally Posted by chosen people

Can non-Jews seriously not understand that while Jews carry no animosity toward any group

By the way, did you remove your location from your profile? I thought I recalled that you live in Israel. If so, I hope that your desire for acceptance of all religious displays is sincere, and that you object to what happened in these articles: (And just in case you might think I retrieved the articles from anti-semitic sources, let me say that one is from a regular news publication and the other is from a Jewish website)

where synagogues and Jewish institutions are frequently vandalized, where Jewish vacation homes are broken into and anti-Semitic vitriol sprawled on the walls.

I can't speak for Canada. Is vandalism a common occurrence there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by chosen people

You are absolutely correct that Jews are a small minority in North America. However a police department function isn't a church service. It's being carried out in conjunction with the place of employment. It's a question of empathy and understanding and sensitivity. By using the word "God" you can include all those employees equally, no one has to feel left out or different. In the end you have to ask yourselves "what is the "Christian" thing to do"?

To this I would say that the Christian thing to do is to give the greatest glory to Christ, and one way to not do that would be to remove his name from our lips. You say it is empathy and understanding. I heartily disagree. And to get back to the thread subject, here are another couple of examples of anti-Christian attacks on prayer from our friends at the Anti Defamation League:

In the end you have to ask yourselves "what is the "Christian" thing to do"?

That would be to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ and let them know there is only one truth and one way to heaven by Jesus Christ. No other way will work. You do no one any good by pretending that their false beliefs have any parity with the reality of the cross of Christ.

First off I don't understand why my location can't be seen by some - it appears on my screen.

For those old enough to remember a time before Vatican II - I am bringing a December 1958 article from "The Point - which was reflective of the type of attitudes toward Jews at that time and in which it explains how Catholics must protect Christmas (and Christianity) from the Jews [so nothing surprising in the some of the posts here] -

"In her liturgical generosity, our Holy Mother the Church gives us three distinct Masses every December twenty-fifth. They are known as the Midnight Mass, the Mass at Dawn, and the Mass of Christmas Day. During the second Mass, the Mass at Dawn, the Church presents us with the memory of a noble widow of Rome named Anastasia, the only saint who gets a “feast day” commemoration on Jesus’ Birthday.

Saint Anastasia was martyred by burning on December twenty-fifth in the year 304. Among all the Christmas Day occurrences of nineteen hundred years, the Church has chosen to remember, in conjunction with Our Lord’s Birth, only this one event: the suffering and death of a Christian martyr whose crime before men was to insist that the Holy Infant of Bethlehem is the One, True God.

This Christmas, there are many gods being proposed to the Catholics of America. They are gods with names like Tolerance and Brotherhood, and to fail to worship them has become, in effect, a crime before men. Invoking Saint Anastasia, The Point prays this Christmas for those who will be guilty of the crime, and who will insist, publicly and persistently, that the Christ Child of Christmas is the only True God, and that His Virgin Mother is that same Mother of God who, when our last Christmas is finally behind us, will stand unique and singular as the one Gate of Heaven.

THE PROTECTION OF CHRISTMAS

Thy light is come, Jerusalem, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee, and the Gentiles shall walk in thy light. Alleluia.
In the troubled season of Christmas, 1958, as the last strongholds of our civilization falter before the Jewish siege, let all who are about to despair consider the above words. They are of an antiphon in the Christmastime liturgy of the Catholic Church, and they offer a needed reminder. Though we must not forget that the Jews have rejected the Incarnate God, we must also remember — with thanksgiving and the chanting of alleluias — that God has likewise cast off the Jews, and established His new and eternal covenant with us Gentiles.
“A Child is born to us, a Son is given to us,” is the jubilant shout of Catholics at Christmas. To the Jews, it is a taunt, notifying them that however much they might bedevil the Church with their anti-Christian onslaughts, her ultimate triumph over them is assured. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

The potency of this promise that Our Lord made to Saint Peter has been realized afresh during the past weeks, with the election of Saint Peter’s 262nd successor. And it is especially fitting that, as a consequence, the attention of the Catholic world at Christmastime will be directed toward Rome. For, ever since the seventh century, the relics of the Crib in which our infant Savior lay have been in the Eternal City, at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major; there, each December 25, the Pope himself celebrates the Midnight Mass.

But besides being the “new Bethlehem,” Rome claims our Yuletide interest on another score. That note of exultation sounding through the Christmas liturgy, insisting we should rejoice even in these beleaguered days, has a resounding echo in the history of the Bishops of Rome. Through all the centuries, they have been the authors of a wise and effective resistance to the menace of the Jews — a resistance that has safeguarded Christendom in the past, and offers the best hope for rekindling it in the future.

* * * * *
The Catholic Church’s Jewish policy was deliberately arrived at. Centuries of contact with Jews at every level, both in and out of the Faith, taught the successors of Saint Peter some salutary lessons. The much-publicized ghetto at Rome, which the Popes maintained for centuries, was not the eccentric whim of a few conservative Holy Fathers. It represented papal teaching and papal practice that extended back through the ages of Faith to Peter himself, who made it clear in his first Epistle that the Jews were finished as God’s people, and who thus wrote to the new Christians of Asia Minor that they were now “a chosen generation and a purchased people ... who in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.”
A compilation of papal decrees dealing with the Jews would clearly show that the Church’s legislative interest in them is twofold. First, the Jews must be constantly and enforcibly segregated from the Christian faithful, and second, they must at all times be prevented from infecting the world with their hateful and infidel doctrines. These were the two principles behind the Church’s approval of ghettos, her ban on the Talmud, her prohibitions against marriage with the Jews, her demand that Jews in Christian places be distinguished by a badge or other identifying dress, her warnings against Jews in public offices, etc.

With the final loss of papal territories in 1870, there ceased to be any Jews under the direct temporal rule of the popes. Yet, public questions involving the Jewish problem often brought the ancient Church principles into play. Thus, it is not surprising to find that the pope who was most outspoken on modern public issues, Pope Leo XIII, receives the following notice in the Jewish Encyclopedia: “He encouraged anti-Semitism by bestowing distinctions on leading anti-Semitic politicians and authors, as Lueger and Drumont; he refused to interfere in behalf of Captain Dreyfus, or to issue a statement against the blood accusation. In an official document he denounced Jews, Freemasons, and anarchists as the enemies of the Church.”

* * * * *
Rome’s traditional outlook on the Jews is currently reflected in its dealings with the Jewish State in Palestine. Amid a frenzied campaign of high pressure and propaganda, designed to persuade the world that Jewish usurpation of the Holy Land is the nicest thing that could have happened to the place, the Vatican has been notably unmoved. And it has been so despite the fact that vast numbers of conspicuous Catholics (Americans leading the pack) have not only swallowed but are publicly regurgitating the pro-Zionist line.
The Church’s mind has been made up on the matter since the days when Theodore Herzl, “the father of Zionism,” decided to call on Saint Pius X. Herzl hoped to get a papal blessing on his scheme for setting up a Jewish homeland. But the Holy Father told him flatly, “We are unable to favor this movement ... The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”

And despite continual coaxings by Jewish leaders and their friends, the Vatican has refused to this day to give official recognition to the Jewish State in Palestine.

There have, however, been papal emissaries in the Holy Land during the last decade. They have gone, not to promote cordial relations between Rome and Tel Aviv, but simply to care for the interests of the Church and her children. They have gone to see how Catholics are harassed and discriminated against by the Jewish government. They have gone to see the wreckage and desecration of Catholic shrines and institutions by the Jewish army. And they have announced plainly to a heedless world what they have seen.

One of the earliest of these Vatican observers was Archbishop Arthur Hughes, who summarized his findings with the charge that there is a “deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the Arabs and to destroy Christianity in Palestine.”

One of the most recent observers is Monsignor Raymond Etteldorf, of the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church. In his book, The Catholic Church in the Middle East, which has just been published, he reports that Catholics living in the Jewish State are being gradually forced out. They find it difficult to get employment, even harder to set up their own businesses. Most important, the number of priests has been so drastically reduced through impositions of the Jewish government that almost half the parishes are now untended.

* * * * *
It is a troubled time, this season of Christmas, 1958. Our Lord’s Holy Land is in the keeping of His crucifiers. And that outrage is not the extent, but only the epitome, of the evil we are facing.
When Our Lady appeared to the children of Fatima, she told them that the people of all nations would have to suffer great afflictions if they did not turn to her. “But in the end,” she told the children, “My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Eventually, after whatever terrors and desolations may be in store for us, the world will listen, thankfully, to the message of the Catholic Faith — that Faith which looks for its ultimate protection to the Bishop of Rome, and finds its most joyful celebration in the festival of Christmas".

Respectfully Chosen People, we can discuss your post further in another thread if you like. My intention was not to turn this thread around, but to reply to your post in which you listed all of the ways in which Christians have been unfair to the Jews, and which you ended with the proclamation that your people hold no animosity to anyone. Your post seemed to imply: Christians = Hateful, Intolerant, while Jews = Good, Innocent, and I contest this notion.

I'll say no on that subject unless you'd like to start another thread. No hard feelings - I don't hold you personally responsible for the actions of thers.

Montreal and Quebec in general is not a good standard. This is the place where residents voted not to allow a small 400 ft. extension at the back of a 60 year old synagogue, where they ended up banning a traditional Church parade just so they could ban a Jewish Purim parade, where synagogues and Jewish institutions are frequently vandalized, where Jewish vacation homes are broken into and anti-Semitic vitriol sprawled on the walls.

You'll have to back up those claims. Be careful not to systematically interpret things in an unfavourable light towards Jewish people. For example, the 400 ft extension may have been refused for architechtural reasons or for reasons others than it being a synagogue. To counter the impression that your statements may have left regarding the Jews' situation in Mtl, here's an interesting story. This, along with other incidents, is what prompted the Quebec Govt to launch the unfortunate Bouchard-Taylor Commission on reasonable accomodations, one of their recommendations was to have the crucifix removed from the National Assembly, the two chairmen are (nominal) Catholics BTW, PM Charest was reasonable enough to not go along with that. Here's the story to put some perspective in what ChosenPeople said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...a-hasidim.html And I don't want to make this thread about Jews, it's really about how Christianity should have predominance over other faiths.

I just posted a similar article. That said, this is just downright disgusting. Chaplains in the Army or any other military branch have every right to use the name of Jesus during their prayers if they want to do and it doesn't matter if the prayers are public or private. It is so sad that the same people who protect our freedom are now having their own freedom attacked.

You might want to double check that. While serving as a Chaplain Assistant I had more than one Chaplain told not to reference God or Jesus in his prayers.

__________________
---------------------
Eugene Yeo

"Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur"
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis

You might want to double check that. While serving as a Chaplain Assistant I had more than one Chaplain told not to reference God or Jesus in his prayers.

And I had many a chaplain invoke both. I'd like to see what the AFI, or whatever policy guides this actually says. It seems absurd to me. As a young Captain, I invoked Jesus and God whenever I wanted, though in a different career field. In the military, with as much profanity as is thrown around, very little seems to offend.

The basic consensus seems to be that North American Jews should be entitled to fewer rights than their Christian counterparts as the Jews are a minority and as the United States and Canada are "Christian" countries.

This affects not only the question of having religious services in the work framework. According to several posters, there should not be any accommodation for the Jewish members (such as the use of the word God or a benediction also being given by a Rabbi). Furthermore, it has also been contended that Jews should not have equal rights to display their religious symbols.

However, we can not stop here. Why should any consideration be made for Jewish students or workers for Jewish religious holidays, or for sports competitions? Why should Jews be allowed to attach a mezzuzah on the door frame of their condo or to erect a Sukkah on their balcony during the holiday of Sukkot? Why should Jews be allowed ritual slaughter or ritual circumcision?

Shouldn't Jews realize they are second class citizens not entitled to the same rights and considerations as their Christian counterparts? If they are not happy, should they move to Israel? Which is personally fine with me. The only thing is that I have a feeling that many of those who would deny Jews equal rights in their respective countries probably would deny Jewish rights of self determination or historical rights to our Homeland.

I believe that where accommodation can be made it should be made. This is one of the places. Then again, maybe the Jews are being punished for writing all those great secular Christmas songs and for making those movies our Christian friends watch every Christmas season

First off I don't understand why my location can't be seen by some - it appears on my screen.

For those old enough to remember a time before Vatican II - I am bringing a December 1958 article from "The Point - which was reflective of the type of attitudes toward Jews at that time and in which it explains how Catholics must protect Christmas (and Christianity) from the Jews [so nothing surprising in the some of the posts here] -

"In her liturgical generosity, our Holy Mother the Church gives us three distinct Masses every December twenty-fifth. They are known as the Midnight Mass, the Mass at Dawn, and the Mass of Christmas Day. During the second Mass, the Mass at Dawn, the Church presents us with the memory of a noble widow of Rome named Anastasia, the only saint who gets a “feast day” commemoration on Jesus’ Birthday.

Saint Anastasia was martyred by burning on December twenty-fifth in the year 304. Among all the Christmas Day occurrences of nineteen hundred years, the Church has chosen to remember, in conjunction with Our Lord’s Birth, only this one event: the suffering and death of a Christian martyr whose crime before men was to insist that the Holy Infant of Bethlehem is the One, True God.

This Christmas, there are many gods being proposed to the Catholics of America. They are gods with names like Tolerance and Brotherhood, and to fail to worship them has become, in effect, a crime before men. Invoking Saint Anastasia, The Point prays this Christmas for those who will be guilty of the crime, and who will insist, publicly and persistently, that the Christ Child of Christmas is the only True God, and that His Virgin Mother is that same Mother of God who, when our last Christmas is finally behind us, will stand unique and singular as the one Gate of Heaven.

THE PROTECTION OF CHRISTMAS

Thy light is come, Jerusalem, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee, and the Gentiles shall walk in thy light. Alleluia.
In the troubled season of Christmas, 1958, as the last strongholds of our civilization falter before the Jewish siege, let all who are about to despair consider the above words. They are of an antiphon in the Christmastime liturgy of the Catholic Church, and they offer a needed reminder. Though we must not forget that the Jews have rejected the Incarnate God, we must also remember — with thanksgiving and the chanting of alleluias — that God has likewise cast off the Jews, and established His new and eternal covenant with us Gentiles.
“A Child is born to us, a Son is given to us,” is the jubilant shout of Catholics at Christmas. To the Jews, it is a taunt, notifying them that however much they might bedevil the Church with their anti-Christian onslaughts, her ultimate triumph over them is assured. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

The potency of this promise that Our Lord made to Saint Peter has been realized afresh during the past weeks, with the election of Saint Peter’s 262nd successor. And it is especially fitting that, as a consequence, the attention of the Catholic world at Christmastime will be directed toward Rome. For, ever since the seventh century, the relics of the Crib in which our infant Savior lay have been in the Eternal City, at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major; there, each December 25, the Pope himself celebrates the Midnight Mass.

But besides being the “new Bethlehem,” Rome claims our Yuletide interest on another score. That note of exultation sounding through the Christmas liturgy, insisting we should rejoice even in these beleaguered days, has a resounding echo in the history of the Bishops of Rome. Through all the centuries, they have been the authors of a wise and effective resistance to the menace of the Jews — a resistance that has safeguarded Christendom in the past, and offers the best hope for rekindling it in the future.

* * * * *
The Catholic Church’s Jewish policy was deliberately arrived at. Centuries of contact with Jews at every level, both in and out of the Faith, taught the successors of Saint Peter some salutary lessons. The much-publicized ghetto at Rome, which the Popes maintained for centuries, was not the eccentric whim of a few conservative Holy Fathers. It represented papal teaching and papal practice that extended back through the ages of Faith to Peter himself, who made it clear in his first Epistle that the Jews were finished as God’s people, and who thus wrote to the new Christians of Asia Minor that they were now “a chosen generation and a purchased people ... who in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God.”
A compilation of papal decrees dealing with the Jews would clearly show that the Church’s legislative interest in them is twofold. First, the Jews must be constantly and enforcibly segregated from the Christian faithful, and second, they must at all times be prevented from infecting the world with their hateful and infidel doctrines. These were the two principles behind the Church’s approval of ghettos, her ban on the Talmud, her prohibitions against marriage with the Jews, her demand that Jews in Christian places be distinguished by a badge or other identifying dress, her warnings against Jews in public offices, etc.

With the final loss of papal territories in 1870, there ceased to be any Jews under the direct temporal rule of the popes. Yet, public questions involving the Jewish problem often brought the ancient Church principles into play. Thus, it is not surprising to find that the pope who was most outspoken on modern public issues, Pope Leo XIII, receives the following notice in the Jewish Encyclopedia: “He encouraged anti-Semitism by bestowing distinctions on leading anti-Semitic politicians and authors, as Lueger and Drumont; he refused to interfere in behalf of Captain Dreyfus, or to issue a statement against the blood accusation. In an official document he denounced Jews, Freemasons, and anarchists as the enemies of the Church.”

* * * * *
Rome’s traditional outlook on the Jews is currently reflected in its dealings with the Jewish State in Palestine. Amid a frenzied campaign of high pressure and propaganda, designed to persuade the world that Jewish usurpation of the Holy Land is the nicest thing that could have happened to the place, the Vatican has been notably unmoved. And it has been so despite the fact that vast numbers of conspicuous Catholics (Americans leading the pack) have not only swallowed but are publicly regurgitating the pro-Zionist line.
The Church’s mind has been made up on the matter since the days when Theodore Herzl, “the father of Zionism,” decided to call on Saint Pius X. Herzl hoped to get a papal blessing on his scheme for setting up a Jewish homeland. But the Holy Father told him flatly, “We are unable to favor this movement ... The Jews have not recognized Our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people.”

And despite continual coaxings by Jewish leaders and their friends, the Vatican has refused to this day to give official recognition to the Jewish State in Palestine.

There have, however, been papal emissaries in the Holy Land during the last decade. They have gone, not to promote cordial relations between Rome and Tel Aviv, but simply to care for the interests of the Church and her children. They have gone to see how Catholics are harassed and discriminated against by the Jewish government. They have gone to see the wreckage and desecration of Catholic shrines and institutions by the Jewish army. And they have announced plainly to a heedless world what they have seen.

One of the earliest of these Vatican observers was Archbishop Arthur Hughes, who summarized his findings with the charge that there is a “deliberate Jewish effort to decimate the Arabs and to destroy Christianity in Palestine.”

One of the most recent observers is Monsignor Raymond Etteldorf, of the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Church. In his book, The Catholic Church in the Middle East, which has just been published, he reports that Catholics living in the Jewish State are being gradually forced out. They find it difficult to get employment, even harder to set up their own businesses. Most important, the number of priests has been so drastically reduced through impositions of the Jewish government that almost half the parishes are now untended.

* * * * *
It is a troubled time, this season of Christmas, 1958. Our Lord’s Holy Land is in the keeping of His crucifiers. And that outrage is not the extent, but only the epitome, of the evil we are facing.
When Our Lady appeared to the children of Fatima, she told them that the people of all nations would have to suffer great afflictions if they did not turn to her. “But in the end,” she told the children, “My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

Eventually, after whatever terrors and desolations may be in store for us, the world will listen, thankfully, to the message of the Catholic Faith — that Faith which looks for its ultimate protection to the Bishop of Rome, and finds its most joyful celebration in the festival of Christmas".

This strikes me as agenda posting designed to simply derail the thread.

The basic consensus seems to be that North American Jews should be entitled to fewer rights than their Christian counterparts as the Jews are a minority and as the United States and Canada are "Christian" countries.

...
I believe that where accommodation can be made it should be made. This is one of the places. Then again, maybe the Jews are being punished for writing all those great secular Christmas songs and for making those movies our Christian friends watch every Christmas season

In the Army, there is a critical shortage of jewish chaplains. Hey, step up. I had time set aside every Saturday for the two jewish servicemembers in our unit, noone EVER showed up. Noone asked that a rabbi visit for services, noone asked for a yamulke (even though I made SURE I had ten on hand at all times), noone asked for so much as a prayer book. But hey, come visit and find out for yourself.

A benediction without religious reference goes a little something like this:

As we gather together today on this occasion, we need to remember those that came before us. We need to consider their sacrifice to ensure our freedom. We need to think about those that we are fighting for (etc. etc. etc)

Had several chaplains flat out ordered not to include any praying or religious reference in their benedictions. And when I was needed to stand in for the chaplain (as I never recieved any such order), I opened the prayer book for armed forces and let 'er rip.

__________________
---------------------
Eugene Yeo

"Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur"
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S. Lewis